Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Roe redux? No, gay marriage is not like the abortion uproar

I can’t predict how the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the gay marriage cases being argued before them this week, but I can assure you of one thing:
As far as issues go, gay marriage will not be the next “abortion.”

I define the word in two ways.

First, “abortion” as shorthand for ongoing, roiling, bitter, deeply polarized public controversy that shows little sign of easing, much less resolving.

Second, “abortion” as shorthand for a U.S. Supreme Court decision that backfired by intensifying a battle in the culture war it was attempting to settle once and for all.

Conventional wisdom is that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion under most circumstances short-circuited the orderly, state-by-state political process by which the nation was gradually negotiating a lasting compromise. The backlash simply inflamed the issue and here we are, 40 years later, raging against one another across a deep philosophical divide.

To the first point: The controversy over gay marriage, unlike the controversy over abortion, shows every sign of resolving. Not only are overall poll numbers moving decisively in favor of legalizing gay marriage — the 58 percent approval shown in an ABC News/Washington Post Poll this month was a record, but nearly every poll now shows majority support — but the demographic trends — 81 percent of respondents ages 18 to 29 support legalization in that same poll — are inescapable.

Polls on abortion, in contrast, have been remarkably steady over time. In April 1975, 22 percent of respondents to a Gallup Poll said abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances.” In Gallup’s most recent abortion poll, December 2012, 18 percent gave that answer. The “legal under any circumstances” number was 21 percent in 1975, 28 percent in 2012.

Why no real movement? Because the debate focuses on the utterly irreconcilable question of the moral status of the victim of an abortion — the developing fetus — at various stages of development, and the limits to which that moral judgment trumps a pregnant woman’s prerogatives.

But the debate over gay marriage focuses on a highly reconcilable question: Does legally formalizing the love and commitment of same sex couples create any victims at all? In other words, does it erode the already deeply eroded institution of male-female marriage? Does it harm the children being reared by gay couples?

That answer is clearly no, leaving opponents to rage incoherently about tradition, biology and scriptural condemnation of sodomy. The more we straight people get to know same-sex couples as neighbors and see them as effective parents, the more the arguments of gay-marriage opponents look like a thin disguise for their revulsion over private homosexual conduct, a matter of taste that has no proper role in public policy.

Experience and exposure also play a role in the formation of opinions on abortion, but there it cuts both ways — opponents who become supporters when they or their partners want to terminate a pregnancy; supporters who become opponents when considering the life gestating within themselves or their loved ones.

To the second point, then: Conservatives who have been warning and liberals who have been trembling about a sweeping declaration from the court in favor of same-sex marriage misunderstand the issue when they predict a Roe-like backlash that will prolong the dispute.

A better analogy is interracial marriage. When the court ruled in 1967 that laws against black-white marriages were unconstitutional, Gallup found only 20 percent of the public approved of such unions. The dead-enders on miscegenation quickly distilled into furtively hateful and fundamentally irrelevant minority, which is exactly and inevitably what will happen to the dead-enders on gay marriage.

Further, I see no evidence in the current state of the abortion debate to suggest that Roe v. Wade prolonged or exacerbated social hostilities over this issue. No one, particularly no one who favors abortion rights, can possibly think we’d be closer today to a favorable national consensus on reproductive rights if the justices had refused to rule on the case.

No matter how the court rules this summer, 40 years from now, opposition to gay marriage will be an embarrassing relic of our Puritan past. And the abortion debate will be as strong as ever.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Further, I see no evidence in the current state of the abortion debate to suggest that Roe v. Wade prolonged or exacerbated social hostilities over this issue. No one, particularly no one who favors abortion rights, can possibly think we’d be closer today to a favorable national consensus on reproductive rights if the justices had refused to rule on the case."

Exactly! I'm tired of this "conventional wisdom" that has Roe somehow generating the abortion controversy. Without Roe, we'd probably spend a lot *more* time yelling about abortion, because it would be subject to a agreater range of action by lawmakers. Even liberal legal scholars who otherwise could see their way to agreeing with the decision shake their heads about Roe and see it as this great backlash-inducing catastrophe. On the contrary, if you favor abortion rights, you should be grateful that Roe protects them, and that the decision is popular and has proved difficult to undo. Even if you're a conservative, especially a conservative in more moderate to liberal territory, you should be grateful that Roe basically means that your candidacy won't automatically pose a threat to the abortion rights Roe protects. But, but, but, people are upset! Yes, and when it comes to this issue, they always will be. Roe forestalled no national compromise. It *is* the national compromise, and it's proved a pretty durable, fair, and popular one, and it has kept abortion on a lower flame than it would be otherwise.

@JakeH: Abortion is a national issue because the Supreme Court stupidly made it one. The states would have long ago ironed out their positions on abortion if it weren't for that dramatic overreach.

I think the same thing is happening here. A lot of states are moving to permitting some sort of civil union or bastardized gay marriage. Let the states iron it out.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm stunned that you, of all people, think the states would have "ironed out" this issue. NEither side, as you well know, has any interest in "ironing out" this issue in a way that doesn't give them what they want. How, pray, would Illinois have "ironed it out"? Indiana? Michigan?

The states will iron this gay marriage issue out, ultimately.... and not to your satisfaction ... until a few brackish backwater states are the only ones left shameless enough to discriminate. We can all pretty much guess where on the map they will be (hint...an overlay of the dead-end states on racial integration) and won't that be pretty. ....Until finally the Supreme Court will sigh and come in and drag them into modernity. Maybe the litigants in that case will do Scalia the favor of not moistly reminding him of his idiotic question about when gay marriage became unconstitutional.

"No one, particularly no one who favors abortion rights, can possibly think we’d be closer today to a favorable national consensus on reproductive rights if the justices had refused to rule on the case."

I don't know that I agree with her, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't agree with you.

ZORN REPLY -- She thinks she saw a temporary setback in a gradual move toward abortion rights AT THE TIME, which may have been true, but, as the author of this piece goes on to point out, though in somewhat naive terms, there would probably be states where abortion was still illegal today. Probably?
Anyone who thinks abortion rights would be broader without Roe doesn't understand the debate very well. That might include Ginsburg, whose incrementalism here might consign her to an evaluation as second-rate by history.

--I realize you can personalize google, but I have googlenews set as my home page, and when I just signed out, Eric, your print column (this one right here!) is at the top of the page, on the left side. Primo placement!!!

MrJM, you're right that Ginsburg is on the other side of this question. In fact, she is one of the authors of the "conventional wisdom" that Zorn and I disagree with. In fairness, there's a more complicated story to tell about backlash directed at the Court in particular, and the concern that the decision called the Court's legitimacy into question and may have inspired the right's focus on the federal judiciary, leading in turn to its being made over into a fairly conservative group overall. This story expresses consternation over politicization of the bench. I'm skeptical of that story too for the simple reason that abortion isn't the only important, controversial issue the Court deals with, and anybody who thinks that the forces of ideological policy preferences could have been somehow lulled into forgetting about the Court's influence by not deciding Roe as it was decided is, I think, living in a fantasy world. Look at the political landscape today, where every appointment goes through the ideological political wringer. You can disagree with Roe as a legal matter, and you can argue on principled grounds that it's an example of overreach (Ginsburg, I think, does this too, and I disagree with that too), but I just don't buy the seemingly pervasive notion that, as a practical matter from the perspective of abortion rights proponents, it was politically the wrong way to go and more trouble than it was worth, nor do I agree with the Broder-esque tut-tutting that amounts to an airy expression of distaste. This is a story that mostly abortion rights opponents would like to tell, for the obvious reason that they don't like Roe from any perspective. The hope, of course, is that controversial Court decisions will be widely accepted over time. As Zorn points out, though, abortion is one of those impossible conflicts bound to persist. As it stands, it persists on a relatively low burn, with the basic compromise Roe establishes -- no regulation early, some regulation later okay -- keeping it from consuming politics in every competitive political unit, and besides, guess what? Roe is more popular than ever -- that wide acceptance may yet occur, and I couldn't say that Ginsburg's national compromise could have won acceptance of abortion rights any earlier. According to a recent poll, 70 percent of respondents think that Roe should stand (an all-time high), and a majority think that abortion should be legal all or most of the time. Indeed, Roe has enjoyed consistent majority support since at least 1990. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255831504582200.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth&__hstc=215845384.53748747598cf96f4476883d5df4e7c2.1363150907626.1364053192950.1364347205680.15&__hssc=215845384.1.1364347205680

p.s. I also agree with the *main* point of the column, which is that gay marriage isn't the same as Roe, and is more likely to see a miscegenation-type acceptance, probably quicker even than that. The gay rights movement has moved very quickly as these things go and I simply can't see any realistic way back.

Actually I think if abortion would have worked itself thru the legislatures, it would be less of an issue than it is today. Before Roe, a few states had just passed state laws allowing abortion. Don't you think that legislatures would have brought this issue up during the 70's - some would have made it legal and others would not, but the issue would have been decided by the elected representatives, not nine unelected people in robes.

ZORN REPLY -- The naiveté of this viewpoint is staggering. I've debated abortion foes for years.... they NEVER quit. They will NEVER accept anything less than full right to life for an embryo at the instant of conception. The idea that we'd all be cool with some phantom compromise is totally ignorant of the state of this debate -- or insincere. You tell me which you are.

I'm with EZ on this rather than Ginsburg (though I don't think she's remotely second-rate). Take your wins where you can get them, whether in the legislatures or the courts or in the executive branch. Conservative blather about "unelected people in robes" creating a backlash is just trash talk meant to scare liberals away from trying to win in court when they can. Unfortunately, some otherwise smart people take it seriously.

Conservatives are more than happy to win in the courts when they can - nobody talks about a blue-state backlash to Heller and McDonald.

Beyond that, this "unelected" business is offensive. It clearly is meant to imply "illegitimate" under our constitutional system when the judges -- selected to fill a role *intended* to be shielded from political pressure -- are anything but illegitimate. They are appointed and confirmed by the elected branches of government to form a separate branch with an important constitutional role.

Why do men believe that the Penis (and the ejaculated sperm that occurs during intercourse) have a Constitutional Right to Privacy? Why is the abortion debate solely focused on a Women?

Civil Unions should be the law of the land. Then if you've chosen a "heterosexual lifestyle" and feel that you need to have your union blessed, and can find a preacher desperate enough to do so...then thats your problem.

For those Americans who are born Gay and want to have a religious ceremony before the Almighty God, they can do so if they choose. Gays have fabulous weddings, and its always a great celebration of Love!

1) I agree that Ginsburg's personal success with incrementalism causes her to overvalue its utility. But advocates should also acknowledge that the judiciary is inherently conservative (small 'c') and will always view bold moves with suspicion. It is a line of work that values "Doing Things the Right Way" much more than "Doing the Right Thing". I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, I'm just saying it's how it is. (And that is the reason that many gay rights activists, especially those who've been doing battle in the courts, thought Ted Olson and David Boies rush to the Supreme Court was reckless.)

2) It is silly to think that proponents of abortion criminalization ever could or will compromise on the issue. Most sincerely believe that babies are being killed. If I thought babies were being killed, I don't imagine I would be open to compromise either. (But I would hope that the Bizzaro-world abortion-criminalizing me would focus my arguments on convincing pro-choice people that they were factually wrong about the nature of abortion rather than arguing that they were horrible, evil people. I've never had much luck convincing people that they were horrible and evil.)

To your point #1, I agree that advocates should recognize the small-c conservatism of the courts (and the big-c Conservatism of certain courts), but I don't think that's what the "backlash" argument is about. I think that argument basically holds that, even when progressives win in the courts, they ultimately lose by provoking their opponents. But it seems to me that the opponents of progress will be plenty provoked regardless of whether a progressive win comes in the courts or the legislatures.

So we should pick our battlefields carefully, but we should not shy away from courts when we think we can win there.

Who knows whether or not the gay "marriage" uproar is the same as the abortion uproar? Anyone can point out the obvious differences and a few similarities between the issues. It's way premature to draw conclusions about the polling though. Perhaps the long-term polling for this issue will more closely resemble the polling shifts for any one of a number of controversial issues - capital punishment, immigration, gun control - or perhaps it will take a path of its own. It's too early to be confident about any of this so draw analogies all you want, but I'm highly skeptical of any of them.

Concerning Roe, I agree with Eric, JakeH and others who believe that it exacerbated hostilities over the issue. Proponents and opponents would be strongly advocating their positions in any case. Even if Roe had been overturned (or is eventually), the two sides will always be strongly advocating their positions and there will be no compromise.

Issues like gay "marriage" and abortion and immigration arise because of our increasing diversity but evolve in their own ways. We came to a national consensus on very controversial issues like slavery but I don't think there is room for a national consensus on many controversial issues anymore.

The diversity that I mentioned (and I use that word to mean all types) has splintered our cultural and social common ground, which has good and bad results. The bad is that I don't think conservatives and liberals are capable of resolving big political issues anymore. The good is that it fosters more individualism over collectivism.

I'm all for leaving people alone and while I don't see any logic behind recognizing what two homosexuals have together as a marriage, it's not very important to me. I've been asked "well, in that case, why don't you concede the issue and move on?" My answer is that my default position is to reject any new law that doesn't make sense to me (and/or costs me money) and there is no political or personal cost to opposing it. I think that conservatives like myself increasingly are coming to the conclusion that the left is always going to attack us for something, so why bother giving up anything? If they don't look down on us for our position on gay "marriage," they will for our positions on guns, immigration, abortion, etc. By the way, I think that a lot of liberal partisans feel the same way, and they are right to do so.

Look at the sign the guy is holding in the picture above that says "Why does my marriage bother you? Yours doesn't bother me!" My simple answer is that I don't care what you call your relationship, by all means let's leave each other alone, and I'm not willing to get the government involved on your behalf.

Without common cultural standards, we're on our own for better or worse.

"Beyond that, this "unelected" business is offensive. It clearly is meant to imply "illegitimate" under our constitutional system when the judges -- selected to fill a role *intended* to be shielded from political pressure -- are anything but illegitimate."

This is the most important point in response to complaints about unelected men in robes. The complaint about these unelected men speaks to a failure of very basic civics education.

[[Eric, you thought we'd all be happy campers with Obamacare by now too.

ZORN REPLY -- Most of the provisions of Obamacare will kick in next year, and we'll just see if the Republican presidential nominee of 2016 runs on a platform of repealing it. I still suspect not.
]]

That's a bet I'll take. I think when people find out the intricacies and the incredible increased costs and lower services (I had to go cover a presentation on this a few weeks ago), not to mention the upheaval, they'll be crying out for repeal.

"That's a bet I'll take. I think when people find out the intricacies and the incredible increased costs and lower services (I had to go cover a presentation on this a few weeks ago)"

I'll assume this was a presentation by a supposed "healthcare provider" like Blue Cross that's trying to push back against their slightly lowered profits due to being required to be reasonable companies and cover more people. But sure, they'll blame it on "Obamacare."

Having a patchwork quilt of different rights and procedures by states is one thing when it is over local issues such as taxation or city council makeup.

It is quite another when it concerns issues such as marriage or abortion, whereby a person traveling across a state line has different rights and priviledges and recognition of their lives.

In marriage, we already see that even though 9 states allow same-sex marriage or civil union, they are not recognized for issues of living or working in other neighbouring states, nor by the federal government for spousal benefits like social security or sponsoring immigrants.

In the same way that abortion used to cause a problem before 1970s, or even the current situation of illegal abortions in Ireland while legal in UK and other EU nations.

Let me explain....in the past, if abortion was illegal in one state, many abortions happened in another state by the lady "going away to stay with Auntie" for a while.

In the current Irish case, abortion is completely illegal in Ireland. so the nationalized health care system, HSE, pays for ladies to go to UK - yup, pays for the abortion AND the plane tickets to/from UK, and the lady still gets an abortion, and even gets it paid for by the government (ie taxpayers who oppose abortion).

How silly is this? Still paying for someone to get an abortion elsewhere, AND the plane tickets to boot, is raising the costs and hassle of the procedure, and it does not eliminate the procedure from being done.

Thus, a prohibition on abortion on your own territory, while encouraging your residents to travel across an artificial government boundary (or to get illegal abortions), does not advance the public good.

Actually, it only shows the hypocracy of bible-thumpers and religious leaders.

To drag this back to the original post: There is at least one way that same-sex marriage could continue to drag out past a SupCo decision, even in the light of polls showing steadily increasing support.

That way: If stories about 80-year-old gay couples finally having a chance to legalize their relationships start getting pushed aside by stories about two 30-somethings wearing nothing but Speedos plight their drunken troth in a public park just as the church across the street is letting out.

In other words, if the hedonist wing of the gay-rights movement -- mostly kept under wraps of late -- pushes its way back to prominence. If that guy who was at the SupCo this week wearing a fishnet devil's costume and others like him start to push back against the image of homosexuals as just like the great majority of heterosexuals, minus the opposite sex.

Americans are clearly in favor of their nice, neat next-door neighbor gays getting married. They're in favor precisely because they have come to see the buttoned-down gays, like Sen. Rob Portman's son, as "just like you and me." Ellen DeGeneres? What a nice woman, with the dancing and the smiling. Anderson Cooper? Happy to have him marry their son or their daughter.

But if you add homosexuality to the type of trashy behavior of, say, a Pamela Anderson, that's a combo that I think most Americans would bridle at. And that could be the wedge for a fight-back.

By all evidence, the hedonist wing is not representative of most gay men and women. But they've been brought along for the ride, even pushed to the forefront at some Gay Pride parades. From what I've seen develop in online discussions, the power of the photos and videos of those parades as a weapon for gay marriage opponents has faded -- but it's still there.

I'd argue that the rise of militant black activism in the mid-60s hurt the momentum of the Civil Rights movement, and is a legacy that still gives strength to today's hard-core bigots. The pink equals signs popping up on Facebook this week are a very mainstream, nonthreatening symbol; they remove the physical act of sex from the equation. But if we start seeing, say, pink phallic symbols being waved around instead of rainbow flags -- and if non-hedonist gay men and women decline to distance themselves from that -- we may be in for a long haul.

[[I'll assume this was a presentation by a supposed "healthcare provider" like Blue Cross that's trying to push back against their slightly lowered profits due to being required to be reasonable companies and cover more people. But sure, they'll blame it on "Obamacare."]]

Actually, it was a presentation on changes in tax law for this year. (I know, I know, the glamorous life!) The person (tax consultant and attorney) giving the presentation had just been a some seminars on it. He went out of his way to stay away from the politics of it, too.

Plus, EZ is wrong in saying a number of benefits have kicked in. (Actually, I should say he has it backwards.) Many of the benefits have already kicked it -- it's the taxes and fees that haven't. There was also a report (bipartisan) released yesterday that forecasts insurance rate increases in the double-digits and yes, because of OC.

Breeson -- The federal government is not the boss of all. There are ALL KINDS of laws that pertain to only one state. Marriage is a biggie. The restrictions and rules (and division of property and divorce, etc.) all vary by state.

"ZORN REPLY -- The naiveté of this viewpoint is staggering. I've debated abortion foes for years.... they NEVER quit. They will NEVER accept anything less than full right to life for an embryo at the instant of conception. The idea that we'd all be cool with some phantom compromise is totally ignorant of the state of this debate -- or insincere. You tell me which you are." - NEITHER.

Perhaps you are the ignorant one. Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and now a law professor at and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford writes this article. I think he is better qualified than either you or I on this matter.

"Funny how conservatives never make that argument about DC v. Heller or Citizens United v FEC or any other case where nine unelected people in robes agree with them." - Thanks for making my point. It seems liberals still have their panties in a knot of these two decisions also. Remember Obama chastizing SCOTUS at the State of the Union?

Finn,

"I'll assume this was a presentation by a supposed "healthcare provider" like Blue Cross that's trying to push back against their slightly lowered profits due to being required to be reasonable companies and cover more people. But sure, they'll blame it on "Obamacare." -I'll give my antecdotal story also - our company has told us in the next two years our health care costs our going up 50% and our options of types of programs (HMO, PPO, and high-deductible) are being eliminated with only the high-deductible plan left.

Add on to that the myth will be busted and exposed that ObamaCare creates a surplus, people will be ready to boot Obama and the democrats out not by 2016, but by 2014.

"Funny how conservatives never make that argument about DC v. Heller or Citizens United v FEC or any other case where nine unelected people in robes agree with them." -

Barry3 adds:

"Thanks for making my point. It seems liberals still have their panties in a knot of these two decisions also."

I've noticed that you often invoke this nutty 3rd grade response whenever the hollowness of one of your comments is exposed. The person who exposed it has made your point. Please.

First of all, I see not one iota of evidence in your comments above suggesting that your point had anything whatsoever to do with liberals being upset about these decisions. Your point was crystal clear. Your point was that you have a problem with 9 unelected people in robes making decisions. My point was also clear: conservatives like you whine about unelected judges only when those judges don't rule your way. I challenge you to find anywhere on this blog or anywhere on the internet, a comment by me whining like you about unelected men in robes. You're the one invoking the complaint selectively.

Second, I don't have my panties in a knot about either decision. My point is that these are examples of conservatives forgetting that they have a problem with unelected men in robes. I'm not confused or inconsistent like you. I've never raised that objection to a court decision, whether I liked the decision or not.

@Barry3:
Remember Obama chastizing SCOTUS at the State of the Union?

Indeed, I do remember it. Obama did not use the ridiculous complaint about unelected men in robes. He disagreed with the decision, vehemently, but he did not challenge the legitimacy of judges. You did. And you do that selectively, only when you don't like the court's decision.

"In other words, does it erode the already deeply eroded institution of male-female marriage? Does it harm the children being reared by gay couples?

"That answer is clearly no..."
Eric, how can you even put that in print? Where is your data to base your comment. In fact, we have now idea if it does harm or not, nor do we no what will happen when we, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, change "this institution that's been around since time immemorial." Gay marriage is a new institution that changes the definition of the fundamental unit of society.

To say that at this stage of the game, the answer to those questions is "clearly no" is an emotionally driven, data starved, nearsighted comment that is quite simply false.

Stranger still were the unwarranted attacks against the Supreme Court that followed. Most visibly, the president used his State of the Union address to accuse the court of having "reversed a century of law" and "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." That statement was astonishing because none of it was true: The oldest decision reversed by Citizens United was 20 years old, not 100, and foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in elections, just as they were before. As for "special interests," many had been spending at an equally furious rate, apparently unnoticed by the president, well before this ruling.:

--"There was also a report (bipartisan) released yesterday that forecasts insurance rate increases in the double-digits and yes, because of OC."

I think you mean the health care industry will jack the rates that they can and blame it on the Affordable Care Act.

"I'll give my antecdotal story also - our company has told us in the next two years our health care costs our going up 50% and our options of types of programs (HMO, PPO, and high-deductible) are being eliminated with only the high-deductible plan left."

So the insurance company is hosing your company on the costs and the plans available. Explain, please, how in any way the insurance company protecting it's profits is a result of the Affordable Care Act rather than them using it as an excuse.

"In fact, we have now idea if it does harm or not"

Actually, that's pretty much settled. Children do better with parents, no matter the parents gender.

"So the insurance company is hosing your company on the costs and the plans available. Explain, please, how in any way the insurance company protecting it's profits is a result of the Affordable Care Act rather than them using it as an excuse."

The Company determined which plans are available due to the cost of the plans to the Company, this was not the Insurance company's choice. Also, our company will choose the best provider, of which cost is a major component. Our insurance provider does not and cannot operate like a non-regulated monopoly and raiase prices as it chooses.

[Thank-you, Eric. Take a gander at this - what I bumped into on the web.]

(The following paper was inspired by Bill O'Reilly whose TV show favors God Dumpers and not "Bible Thumpers." Quotes are from "Vital Quotations" by Emerson West.)

DANGEROUS BIBLE THUMPERS OF AMERICA

ROBERT E. LEE: "In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength." (p. 21)
DANIEL WEBSTER: "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper." (p. 21)
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: "I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year." (p. 22)
ABRAHAM LINCOLN: "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book." (p. 22)
GEORGE WASHINGTON: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." (p. 22)
HORACE GREELEY: "It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people." (p. 23)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him." (p. 45)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian." (p. 47)
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see." (p.49)
WOODROW WILSON: "The sum of the whole matter is this----that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit." (p. 143)
PATRICK HENRY: "There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations." (p. 145)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction." (p. 225)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus." (p. 237)
GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it." (p. 283)
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped." (p. 301)
CALVIN COOLIDGE: "The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions." (p. 305)
GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young." (p. 306)

Prior to our increasingly "Hell-Bound and Happy" era, America's greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we've forgotten God's threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22----"Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver." Memo to God Dumpers: In light of Rev. 16:19, can you be sure you won't be in a city that God has already reserved for destruction?

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.